Irregular Times Diaries: Unfit Discussion

Last year, we warned about the electoral implications of the nomination of Martha Coakley to the U.S. Senate. Coakley supported the Patriot Act, alienating the progressive base of the Democratic Party. Mike Capuano, who was one of the few to vote against the Patriot Act back in 2001, would have been a much better choice, and could have rallied Democratic voters to beat Scott Brown.

All that’s history now. What’s not history is the Patriot Act.

Just last week, the House of Representatives voted to pass an extension of the Patriot Act without any reforms at all, sneaking the vote in as an approval of an unspecified amendment to a Medicare bill.

Two-thirds of the House Democrats voted with the Republicans to approve the reform-free extension of Patriot Act spying powers that the government uses against Americans. Mike Capuano was not one of them. Capuano voted against the perpetuation of George W. Bush’s spying programs.

“You may recall that in 2001, I voted against the Patriot Act because I strongly believed that it did not do enough to protect our cherished civil liberties. I continue to have serious concerns about some of its provisions,” Capuano wrote, explaining his vote. “I want to be clear that it is important to give law enforcement the tools they need to pursue criminals. However, there is a way to do that and still recognize the importance of civil liberties – and such a solution is not currently being pursued by the House and Senate.”

Thank you, Representative Capuano, for taking a stand against the politics of fear.

The re-election campaign web site for Congressman John Conyers claims that Conyers stands against the Patriot Act. It tells how Conyers has reacted to the Patriot Act in the past, reading, “The Bush Administration was not satisfied with a bill that gave it everything it needed; it sacrificed his good faith negotiations and bipartisanship for a bill that had everything it wanted. What the Administration wanted was the ability to conduct secret searches of suspects (also known as “sneak-and-peek” searches), to monitor our reading habits by getting records from libraries and bookstores, and to detain non-citizens indefinitely. To accomplish this, the Administration and the House Republican leadership threw away the bipartisan bill from the Committee and wrote a new one in secret; the new bill, known as the USA PATRIOT Act, was given to the Congress the very morning it was voted on and was not disclosed to the public until much later. The secrecy in which it was written and the extreme provisions it contained were what called for Mr. Conyers to vote against the frightfully-named USA PATRIOT Act.

Unfortunately, the Administration’s war on terrorism proved that his vote was the right one. When Mr. Conyers asked the Justice Department how it has used its sneak-and-peek authority, it cannot tell of one act of terrorism that has been prevented. When Mr. Conyers asked the Department how often it has sought patron records from libraries and bookstores, it responds by saying the very number of times is classified so that the information cannot be disclosed to the public.”

That sounds like a strong stand in opposition to the Patriot Act, doesn’t it? Unfortunately, making sounds is one thing. Action is another.

Yesterday, John Conyers voted to extend the Patriot Act without reforming it at all.

Recently, I was asked: What can I do today, to start to make a difference? What can the average American do to have their voice heard? I have given these questions a lot of thought, because they are questions I ask myself.  My conclusion: There are more average Americans than any other kind of American and as the dominate culture you would think we’d have some say in how our country is governed. 

 I am told: There has always been war, oppression, exploitation and there will always be.

 I have been told this behavior is human nature and we are incapable of escaping it.

 My friends, there are more than six billion people on this planet and I guarantee you more than six billion people have no desire to wage war, murder, rape, maim, oppress, or cause suffering to their fellow human beings.  Most of us want to lead lives of love and spiritual fulfillment and to watch our children grow up healthy and happy. 

 So what can the average American do?

 First, we must find our collective voice through an ongoing dialogue with each other.  We must use our eyes, ears, and minds to draw our own conclusions from the facts and not adopt the perceptions of the popular media or the political and religious pundits.  Our political views and religious beliefs should guide us from within, not be defined by others whose agendas can never truly be known.  Once we have found our voice we must make it heard.  We must continue our dialogue with ever growing numbers of people.  To make the dialogue meaningful, we must take the risk of moving beyond our comfortable social groups and find out what we have in common with others

 Second, we must plan to act within our sphere of influence.  This means not focusing our frustration and collective energies on other nations’ governments.  We need to start pressuring our own.  Our Government would like us to focus on situations such as the Congo (a very important issue) and to leave them alone to pretend to nobility by issuing a few lines of disgust at the situation—disseminated by the official propaganda machine of the US Government known as the Fourth Estate or the so-called “free press” owned by the very corporations that not only support the atrocities that are inflicted on our brothers and sisters outside our borders, but profit from them.

 Let us take a brief look at our current “elected” officials.  They are liars and traitors.  This might sound like the rank and file liberal politician-bashing, but I ask you to stop and think. 

 Our “representatives” speak with soaring rhetoric promising the next “Great Society.” They speak of American values, “enlightened self interests, and our moral ascendency in the world. 

 We believe them. 

 They say they will not be controlled by the tax-dodging, multi-national corporations and special interest groups. 

 We believe them. 

 They tell us to vote for responsible change. 

 We do.

 And then. . . they get elected.

 And we hear words like “pragmatism.”  We are told of the culture of Washington, D.C. and how they must compromise to get things done. We are asked to trust them. We are told they are trying hard to do their best. Think on this – every last one of them claims victimization to this circumstance.  If they all agree—and I mean all of them—it is the culture of D.C. that will not allow change without pandering to the corporate interests, I ask: “What is the source of this culture?”  If it is not them, from where does it issue?  Having said that, it stands to reason our government is not in the hands of our elected officials, and it has been clear for some time we are not running it, then, I ask you: “WHO IS?”

 Perhaps it is the free market ideology. We are told that market forces are the purveyor of democracy.  We are told our choices are what determine and drive the market. We are led to believe every time we make a choice it is a vote for the continuation of the free market.  The free market corporations have stolen our democracy, for it is they who determine which choices are available.  If my choices are limited to Exxon or Chevron, Coke or Pepsi, McDonald’s or Burger King, Wal-Mart or Albertson’s, Democrat or Republican, Heads or Tails (it is all the same bloody coin), what choices do I really have? It is the media working hand-in-hand with corporations and marketing firms to present us with the choice of candidates for the government of the United States and the choice of perceptions and frames of reference we may consider when expressing support or dissention.   (Read more: The FCC’s Christmas Gift to Big Media)

 This is Democracy?

 There are circumstances where we are given impossible choices or no choice at all.  For example, with insufficient or non-existent alternative transportations, for the purpose of getting to work, seeking healthcare (for those who can afford it), or even gathering our food and clothing, many of us are forced to purchase and maintain cars.  Thus, we are forced to support the most sinister corporations on the planet.  Since I own a car, is it    my desire the rivers and lakes be polluted, human beings be exploited, displaced, poisoned, and sometimes even murdered?   Does this mean I willingly support criminal wars?

 No.

 However, I, not having fought to change the structure of my society and because my continuing lifestyle aids and abets these corporate monsters, I share a measure of the guilt, as do my American brothers and sisters, which, if there be a final judgment, no measure of charity and repentance can wash clean the stain of innocent blood from our clothes, our hands, our souls, unless we stand together now to end this madness and put people before profit and our own material comforts.

 The United States is, at present, involved in two wars, one in Afghanistan and the other in Iraq.  It is threatening a third with Pakistan, has made recent aggressive overtures toward Iran and Yemen.  Our closest ally, Israel, with our financial and military support is engaged in a slow genocide of the Palestinian people. I am amazed the most passionate American national dialogue other than Dancing with the Stars and the latest fad diet is whether or not popular television personality Ellen DeGeneres should be allowed to be married to Portia De Rossi.

 If we fail to reclaim our republic, we will lose it.  Each day it slips a little further away. 

 There is hope.

 If 300,000,000+ Americans demand change, it will happen. 

 However, if we are waiting for those in power to bestow benevolent change upon us, we will wait forever.  What will compel them to change?  Are we to assume they are truly the wisest among us?  Do we mistake them for the enlightened?  These are people who actually debate the value of assuring children a lunch at school. Do you believe that? I don’t even have to go into where they think that money is worth spending.  Have you heard of Depleted Uranium Devices? Cluster Bombs? Nuclear Missiles? Wall Street Bail Out?

 Look issues up on the internet, read opinions, sort through the garbage, do your homework, find the facts and draw your own conclusions.  NBC, ABC, FOX, CBS are all owned by the very corporations that benefit from providing good people with bad information to increase corporate profits exponentially into perpetuity.  We must no longer allow the corporations and businesses to present our representatives to us, to limit us to Coke or Pepsi.  We must find our representatives from amongst ourselves and assure they are beholden to none other than their constituents.

 We must avoid and end term limits.  Why should an excellent public servant not be allowed to devote his or her life to making America a better country?  Term limits can only serve big business.  Think about it.  Good public servants are ousted arbitrarily and people who are elected are concerned about their careers afterward.  Does this not open the door to “networking” prior to leaving office? With term limits, does it not benefit the politician to consider the needs of a large company or industry that will see to his or her future livelihood?  Someone doing the people’s work for life would be less inclined to seek out such a patron.

 Open the dialogue where ever you gather with people.  Talk to those at your church, synagogue, mosque, and political gatherings.  Talk about it in the pubs, coffee houses and AA groups, on blogs, Twitter, and Facebook. Start journals and newsletters.  The time to act is not far off, but we all must act together.

 We can fight for change or we can remain cowards hiding behind our own rhetoric of fear and powerlessness.  The government must be made to understand that if it continues to twist and ignore the Constitution, if it continues to stomp on the democratic rights of the People, it will be brought down!  It is the fundamental responsibility of all people living in a democracy to dissolve a government when it becomes unresponsive to the will of, or oppressive of, its people. 

 Make no mistake. We are not the government’s people – it is the People’s Government. If the Congress thinks differently, if the White House is offended, if the military, FBI and CIA don’t like it, they must be dismantled and replaced.

hoc opus, hic labor est

Erik. F. Kreis

 © 2009

A year and a half ago, the Irregular Diaries here were consumed with debate between Clinton Democrats and Obama Democrats. PUMA – Party Unity My Ass – was the rallying cry for supporters of Hillary Clinton.

I haven’t heard any of that here since Sarah Palin came on the scene as the Vice Presidential Tragic Clown candidate. So, tonight, I’m wondering – are there any Clinton PUMAs left, ready to pick up the banner again and march into the 2012 Democratic primaries in rebellion?

We sold one of these Clinton 2012 shirts here the other day, but I have yet to see the angry Clinton supporters actually speaking out. If you’re out there, drop us a line and tell us about the state of the PUMA.

Barack Obama angered many environmentalists this week when he promised to promote the coal industry fraud of clean coal. Why would he do such a thing, when there’s never been a single viable commercial use of supposedly clean coal technology, when the technology doesn’t even really eliminate most of the pollution and waste from the process of gaining energy from coal anyway?

Well, there’s a lot of money in that coal. One of the coal giants, Alliance Resource Partners, just announced record profits for 2009. What did they do with all that money? $12,500 of it went to the Central Executive Committee of the Kentucky Democratic Party.

And what did Kentucky’s representatives in Congress do this week? They joined together to reconstitute the Congressional Coal Caucus, which includes Nick Rahall, the Democratic Chair of the House Natural Resources Committee.

Coal dust is settling all over the Democratic Party these days.

There’s a new logo for the Blue Dog Democrats being used by U.S. Representative Jim Costa, and others from the right wing coalition.

It’s got an extra squiggle to it: “Conservative”, it reads. That’s just in case you hadn’t paid attention to the way that U.S. Representatives like Costa have sabotaged the Democratic majority in Congress over the last year.

It’s a not very subtle hint for Republican voters. This Democrat won’t support any of that progressive stuff. Democratic voters, on the other hand, are just supposed to see the word “Democrat” and fall in line.

Hint, hint: There’s no “fiscal” in front of “conservative”. These Blue Dogs are just plain conservative.

Michelle Bachmann (R-MN), after being told to stop interrupting, and to act “lady-like” by Senator Arlen Specter (D-PA) on Philadelphia talk radio is now trying to take the story and spin it into much more than it was. What is ironic is that Bachmann and the right wing news media is now claiming that Specter’s comment was a sexist remark. However, the last time I checked… IT IS NOT VERY LADY-LIKE, nor gentlemanly for that matter to act like an IGNORAMOUS.

Since we’re having a discussion about what can be sexist and discriminatory against gender, Id encourage folks to look into the recent past vote on the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009, starting both with Senator Arlen Specter (D-PA) and Minnesota’s Michelle Bachmann (R-MN). Arlen Specter stood up and voted FOR women to be given equal pay for equal work as clearly signified by his support of the Lilly Leadbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=s2009-14

Michelle Bachmann voted NAY… against the Lilly Leadbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009. That to me, is very hypocritical of Bachmann to mislead that Senator Specter is a sexist, when in fact it was Bachmann that made a shameful vote in favor of continued sexism discriminating against women and minorities receiving a fair wage. Dont believe me? Look for yourself at Michelle Bachmann supporting the continued sexist injustice of voting to deprive women of equal pay for equal work. This vote was about a woman’s dignity:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2009-9

What would Lilly Leadbetter think about what Michelle Bachmann’s no vote meant to hardworking women who were discriminated against?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZpVHMYe2oHQ

Bachmann’s strategy of interrupting her co-guests on radio and tv shows is well-documented. Simply put, she has no respect for the golden rule of “treating others how you would expect to be treated yourself.” Her strategy is basically that of the radical right wing that we saw during the healthcare debate, that is… to silence and drown out debate by not giving the Democrat the chance to speak. She consistently interrupted Senator Specter and he finally told her to shut up and wait her turn to speak as any civil person would.

In short, Bachmann tried to bully the wrong Democrat and got punched in the nose by Snarlin Arlen. Teddy would be proud! It is good we have a Democrat willing to put these extreme right wingers who have no respect for civil rules of debate in their place. As for who the sexist is…. maybe we should ask Lilly Leadbetter and all of the women that Arlen Specter stood up for and Michelle Bachmann did not?

Join me in working to get a candidate that supports the dignity of women for MN-6:

http://www.actblue.com/page/defeatbachmann

Specter is running against right winger and Club for Growth President Pat Toomey, who like Bachmann is certainly against any concept of fairness as he’s repeatedly slammed the Democrats for raising the minimum wage. Toomey is another country club right wing Republican who values workers dignity very little and favors continued prosperity for the top 5 percent. He and Michelle Bachmann would get along together, which is why we need to work to defeat the both today!

So far, Palin hasn’t said anything that the Republicans haven’t been saying for the last eight years. She’s proving herself to be little more than a parrot for the same old policies that have been given a nice little mask.

And after all the prep she’s had, they never told her the word is pronounced nu·cle·ar?

Yes I know she is only running for Vice President, but lets face it McCain is old and she is devious.

I have been reading as much as I can about Sarah Palin and frankly I am scared that the McCain/Palin team might actually win this election.

The main thing that scares me is the way she presents herself, even when she is hunting for a way out of the wet paperbag during interviews, she comes across as that attractive woman everyone knows from work, the library or coffee shop that seems intelligent but slightly ditzy in a cute 1950’s young wife stereotype kind of way.

That kind of woman has a serious advantage in the normal male to female and female to female dynamic in that most people don’t look past the ditz to see the danger. Others discount her ability to make choices, plans and enemies. People often believe that women like her are harmless and can be controlled. This may seem sexist, but it is just a facet of our current social environment. Like racism and homophobia, sexism dies hard, particularly when people are not even aware they are doing it.

Sarah has somehow managed to convice her supporters (most of republican party and many Hillary supporters) that her tenure as Mayor was a success and that leaving a town of 5k to 7k people with a 20 million dollar public debt, no sewers but a great sports complex makes her fiscally conservative and trustworthy steward of public interest. Forget the fact that Wasilla, AK had no debt when she took office, their annual budget was about $3 million dollars less when she got there than when she left and that she had implemented a personal jihad against those that stood up to her.

They seem to willingly overlook the fact she has admitted, proudly I might add, that she demanded the written resignations of all the top officials when she took office “as a demonstration to my administration”. Since when to public officials in the United States take an oath of fealty to the incumbent?

There has been some controversy over whether she wanted to ban books from the Wasilla public library. Sarah claims that she was only having a “rhetorical discussion” with the head librarian and she would never support banning books. This is an amazingly strange “rhetorical discussion” to have with anyone, much less a librarian, particularly one from whom you have demanded a letter of resignation to show loyalty to your administration. It is also peculiar timing that this “rhetorical discussion” occurred during a time when the church she attends regularly was in the midst of a petition drive to ban books in the public library, the school and in local book shops. The church apparently is not willing, yet, to claim their petition was only a rhetorical one.

I could repeat all the rumours and conspiracy theories here, but I will leave that for others to do. I just want people to think clearly about this woman and her abilities to misdirect attention.

Another great example is the GOP machine and Sarah backers who keep claiming she is enormously popular in Alaska. Funny thing is most interviews I have found with “regular citizens” pretty much declaim her as one step above a feudal lordling with an axe to grind. Not what I would deem popular by even the broadest standard.

So please do us all a favor, read up on her, seperate the wheat from the chaff, then go out a buy a snake to handle while you pray that the witch known as Sarah Palin flies away on her broom.

With all the talk about Sarah Palin and her latest question-evasions, I thought the economy has been getting less than it’s needed share of coverage. After all, just a couple of days ago the stock market was in a crisis, the DOW dropped around 400 points in a day, AIG pretty much went bankrupt, and gold set a record for most gain in a single day by ground from around $740 bucks a troy ounce to $860 a troy ounce.

More Americans are focusing on the economy, a place where John McCain has admitted he sucks at and Sarah Palin has established herself to be incapable of balancing a budget.

So for this crisis, what is Bush’s solution? Set aside 700 billion dollars to buy shit assets without a plan to have that money paid back.

Here, I’ll let you read for yourself.

Bush team, Congress negotiate $700B bailout.

Bush team, Congress negotiate $700B bailout
By JULIE HIRSCHFELD DAVIS and DEB RIECHMANN, Associated Press Writers 33 minutes ago

The Bush administration asked Congress on Saturday for the power to buy $700 billion in toxic assets clogging the financial system and threatening the economy as negotiations began on the largest bailout since the Great Depression.

The rescue plan would give Washington broad authority to purchase bad mortgage-related assets from U.S. financial institutions for the next two years. It does not specify which institutions qualify or what, if anything, the government would get in return for the unprecedented infusion.

Democrats are pressing to require that the plan help more strapped borrowers stay in their homes and to condition the bailout on new limits on executive compensation.

Congressional aides and administration officials are working through the weekend to fill in the details of the proposal. The White House hoped for a deal with Congress by the time markets opened Monday; top lawmakers say they would push to enact the plan as early as the coming week.

“We’re going to work with Congress to get a bill done quickly,” President Bush said at the White House. Without discussing specifics, he said, “This is a big package because it was a big problem.”

The proposal is a mere three pages long, but it gives sweeping powers to the government to dispense gigantic sums of taxpayer dollars in a program that would be sheltered from court review.

“It’s a rather brief bill with a lot of money,” said Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., the Banking Committee chairman. “We understand the importance of the anticipation in the markets, but we also know that what we’re doing is going to have consequences for decades to come. There’s not a second act to this — we’ve got to get this right.”

Lawmakers digesting the eye-popping cost and searching for specifics voiced concerns that the proposal offers no help for struggling homeowners or safeguards for taxpayers’ money.

The government must bail out the financial system “because if we don’t, it will have a tremendous impact on American consumers, homeowners, taxpayers and the rest,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said in San Francisco.

But, she added, “We cannot deal with this unless this bailout helps families stay in their homes.”

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. said “we cannot allow ourselves to be in denial about the threat now facing the world economy. From all indications, that threat is real, and the consequences of inaction could be catastrophic. Every single American has a stake in preventing a global financial meltdown.”

The proposal would raise the statutory limit on the national debt from $10.6 trillion to $11.3 trillion to make room for the massive rescue.

“The American people are furious that we’re in this situation, and so am I,” the House’s top Republican, Ohio Rep. John A. Boehner, said in a statement. “We need to do everything possible to protect the taxpayers from the consequences of a broken Washington.”

Signaling what could erupt into a brutal fight with Democrats over add-on spending, Boehner said “efforts to exploit this crisis for political leverage or partisan quid pro quo will only delay the economic stability that families, seniors, and small businesses deserve.”

Bush said he worried the financial troubles “could ripple throughout” the economy and affect average citizens. “The risk of doing nothing far outweighs the risk of the package. … Over time, we’re going to get a lot of the money back.”

He added, “People are beginning to doubt our system, people were losing confidence and I understand it’s important to have confidence in our financial system.”

Neither presidential candidate took a position on the proposal. GOP nominee John McCain said he was awaiting specifics and any changes by Congress.

Democratic rival Barack Obama used the party’s weekly radio address to call for help for Main Street as well as Wall Street.

Their language reflected a tricky balance that politicians in both parties are trying to strike, just six weeks before Election Day: Back a plan that doles out hundreds of billions to companies that made bad bets and still identify with the plight of middle-class voters.

Besides mortgage help and executive compensation limits, Democrats are considering attaching middle-class assistance to the legislation despite a request from Bush to avoid adding items that could delay action. An expansion of jobless benefits was one possibility.

Bush sidestepped questions about the chances of adding such items, saying that now was not the time for posturing. “I think most leaders would understand we need to get this done quickly, and you know, the cleaner the better,” he said about legislation being drafted.

Treasury officials met congressional staff for about two hours on Capitol Hill on Saturday. Discussions centered on how the plan would work, and Democrats proposed adding the executive compensation limits and new foreclosure-prevention measures. Details of those changes were not available Saturday, as staff aides worked to draft them. Bush and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson conferred by phone for about 20 minutes in the afternoon, gauging how the negotiations were unfolding.

Among the key issues up for negotiation is which financial institutions would be eligible for the help. The proposed legislation doesn’t make it clear, leaving open the question of whether hedge funds or pension funds could qualify.

The proposal does not require that the government receive anything from banks in return for unloading their bad assets. But it would allow the Treasury Department to designate financial institutions as “agents of the government,” and mandate that they perform any “reasonable duties” that might entail.

The government could contract with private companies to manage the assets it purchased under the rescue.

Paulson says the government would in essence set up reverse auctions, putting up money for a class of distressed assets — such as loans that are delinquent but not in default — and financial institutions would compete for how little they would accept.

I understand the need for quick action in a case like this, but trying to rush through a bill of 700 BILLION dollars with only two days of debate and thus far no assurances that John Q is gonna be able to keep a roof over his head and little or no stipulations as to getting the money back aside from Bush’s word that “we’ll get a lot of it back over time”? Yeah, considering his track record I’m less than reassured.

Actually, I’m horrified.

Oh, I just loved the part about the national debt. From $10.6 trillion to $11.3 trillion if the bill passes. Whoopie.

In other news; 40 people in a Pakistan hotel were killed by a suicide bomber.